Lexis Nexis and Westlaw are massive special-purpose search engines dealing in exactly this kind of data: court reports. Lexis Nexis is also well-known as a newspaper/magazine search engine.
Imagine a lawyer in the UK trying to refer to a classic interpretation and discovering the case was no longer reported, as from the point of view of one of the participants, it was "no longer relevant".
In non-EU countries, it if was a case about a minor, the page would have the names removed. Similarly, if a participant had received a pardon, they could apply to the court to remove their name from the published report. The original report would be available, of course, to lawyers willing to agree to confidentiality controls.
It's already having an effect: in the UK their privacy commission just got credit reporting company misbehavior dumped back on their plate: turns out they're the legal equivalent of search engines. Now add any other "information intermediary" like Lexis Nexis, which publishes law reports...
It's cheap in the short run, especially if you can't afford the hardware. That's why people used to lease time on IBM mainframes in computer centres. Now people lease time on x86s in computer centres, not realizing that buying enough for your base load is affordable, as well as cheaper in the long run.
The leasing (cloud) people just love people who don't know about costs.
I did a table-based setup for an electoral candidate, and could up- and down-load subsets to spreadsheets for major changes or offline work and it has a simple form for single-line changes. Much processing consisted of select, export, format and print, as many volunteers understood paper and pen (;-))
Regrettable... I had taken the " Google failed to argue that such a decision would be unfair because the information was already legally in the public domain." as an indication that they had not been heard, rather than that they had not made the point.
Thanks for the pointer!
[81] However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, that balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.
... suggests that they might make a "correct results" argument, to further narrow the case and exclude companies "scrubbing" their reputations via takedown orders.
Followup: looking at the ruling, there's a contradiction between "processing" and "search", where Google has failed to argue that their result ranking is either fair or dictated by necessary. This may take an additional case, to distinguish when one can legitimately ask to be removed and when one can't. I'm guessing Google will argue that they would have had to to engage in at least malfeasance to qualify for removal of results (;-))
The court, of course: they purportedly complained that Google hadn't made their case. That's why I mentioned "standing".
Supreme courts of different jurisdictions have differing rules about rehearings, but almost all require an application to be considered, just because they are supreme.
It's a genuine risk if standards get lowered in some areas, as eventually they could "surround" the EU with a desert of lower standards and enable more and more poor products.
Historically, software that can only be sold in one country has suffered badly in the marketplace against software that can be sold everywhere. I first saw that at GEAC, when they were certified in (if memory serves) Germany and started seeing many more sales in countries we'd never heard of before (;-))
If you have to have software that's designed to meet a required lowness of confidentiality, you'll be the only country writing it. You probably won't trust another tin-pot country's software, and will have to keep doing it all yourself.
Vendors want to sell software that meets the highest standards, so they can sell it into lots of countries, not write individual specials for every tin-pot dictator on the planet.
Image how much fun it will be, trying to write your own routers, your own google, your own facebook, etc, etc. All so you can lower the quality.
If ip in set(FCC) {
... permanently overprint "Welcome to your new, non-neutral, net"
... speed = slow
}
else {
... for 10 seconds overprint "We're slowing the FCC, you should too"
... speed = fast
}
Actually it doesn't scale: if you have strong enough dependencies, A: B, eventually you'll start getting B: A. If either has a bug, they all have a bug. This is one of the things that MVS programs suffered from, as people kept putting stuff into them, typically until they could send mail (;-))
Some chaps at Bell Labs saw the problem and invented pipes, tools and loose coupling.
... dictates the answer. Reasoning strictly inside the box that creates, if you then try to propose a robot can use it's own judgment for everything but firing a weapon, you'll get criticized for hitting the edge of the box and not allowing it to actually be autonomous.
In fact, the question isn't "how autonomous", it's "autonomous or not".
They're not granted monopolies unless they are telcos owning poles. The non-telephone companies typically bought up the space on hydro poles. Poles are a regulated monopoly, people using them are an unregulated monopoly.
At the technical level, treat it as if it were "bufferboat", make sure your buffers are configured properly, and use an AQM algorithm like fq_codel. Doubly so if you're Level 3 or any other poor ISP connected to the culprits!
Clearly the smart move is to leave, and become a service provider. Start a security focused business, start something the NSA themselves will have trouble getting into, and you provide incentive for them to buy their way in when your security focus attracts someone they find interesting
I wasn't asking about legitimate spin-offs, I was wondering how many of them are pure crooks (;-))
When Sun still existed, it wasn't at all unexpected for a couple of people to leave to start their own business, work on something on their own nickel that Sun wasn't going to fund, and see if they'd get bought.
The Sun very-very-multithreaded chips came out of two hardware designers thinking that there was a better way to go fast than "this chip is so hot it glows in the dark". They got lots of parallel threads almost immediately, whereupon Sun bought them! They eventually got faster single-threaded performance too, all out if breaking up the function units very differently.
All large organizations suffer from this phenomenon, whether they're public or private. All large organizations suffer from crooks walking out with thumb-drives, too...
I wonder how many of these companies were started by ex-sysadmins with their pockets full of thumb-drives? Is their security is that bad, there must be a thriving business in recycled secrets (;-))
This because the UK discovered to their discredit that chip and pin could be broken by grad students on a security course.
See Chip and Pin is Broken (2010)
Being nice doesn't make you wise. Mr. Stroustrup is certainly intelligent: I've read his apologia*, and have no doubt he was following a good lead, and wasn't planning to fail.
Regrettably, you have to navigate around using them: It's like a control panel with the 40% of the buttons you push spattered among the 60% you don't.
Or, more precisely, the statements you know the grammar for are only 40% of what are in in the recognizer. The program that's trying to read your input and sort it into correct and erroneous now has a much greater chance of mistaking an error for a valid statement in the language.
Guess what happens when you say
do 10 i=1.5 instead of do 10 i=1,5 in FORTRAN. Syntactically correct, but not what you meant to say!
I've used it off and on since "c with classes", and while it's regularly improved at the detail level, it's still
- non-orthogonal
- complex
- exceedingly subtle in spots.
I think the best characterization is still Ozan's:
Everyone knows 40% of C++. Unfortunately, it's never the same 40%.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance (variously attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others)
Besides being vigilant, you have to "petition the King for Redress of Grievance", well as pressure the commons (legislature) to strengthen the law, lean on the police to enforce the law that already exists, write amicus curia letters to the courts and burn the occasional monopolist at the stake (;-))
In Canada, the local hydro companies are regulated monopolies already, own half the poles on the streets and all the electrical cables on the poles. If they owned the fibre on the poles, we'd be in a distinctly better state, somewhat like parts of the EU.
Slashdot Mirror
For one, legal publishers.
Lexis Nexis and Westlaw are massive special-purpose search engines dealing in exactly this kind of data: court reports. Lexis Nexis is also well-known as a newspaper/magazine search engine.
Imagine a lawyer in the UK trying to refer to a classic interpretation and discovering the case was no longer reported, as from the point of view of one of the participants, it was "no longer relevant".
In non-EU countries, it if was a case about a minor, the page would have the names removed. Similarly, if a participant had received a pardon, they could apply to the court to remove their name from the published report. The original report would be available, of course, to lawyers willing to agree to confidentiality controls.
It's already having an effect: in the UK their privacy commission just got credit reporting company misbehavior dumped back on their plate: turns out they're the legal equivalent of search engines. Now add any other "information intermediary" like Lexis Nexis, which publishes law reports...
It's cheap in the short run, especially if you can't afford the hardware. That's why people used to lease time on IBM mainframes in computer centres. Now people lease time on x86s in computer centres, not realizing that buying enough for your base load is affordable, as well as cheaper in the long run.
The leasing (cloud) people just love people who don't know about costs.
I did a table-based setup for an electoral candidate, and could up- and down-load subsets to spreadsheets for major changes or offline work and it has a simple form for single-line changes. Much processing consisted of select, export, format and print, as many volunteers understood paper and pen (;-))
Regrettable... I had taken the " Google failed to argue that such a decision would be unfair because the information was already legally in the public domain." as an indication that they had not been heard, rather than that they had not made the point. Thanks for the pointer!
Followup: looking at the ruling, there's a contradiction between "processing" and "search", where Google has failed to argue that their result ranking is either fair or dictated by necessary. This may take an additional case, to distinguish when one can legitimately ask to be removed and when one can't. I'm guessing Google will argue that they would have had to to engage in at least malfeasance to qualify for removal of results (;-))
The court, of course: they purportedly complained that Google hadn't made their case. That's why I mentioned "standing". Supreme courts of different jurisdictions have differing rules about rehearings, but almost all require an application to be considered, just because they are supreme.
Courts are based on both sides arguing their case: Google needs to gain standing and appeal.
It's a genuine risk if standards get lowered in some areas, as eventually they could "surround" the EU with a desert of lower standards and enable more and more poor products.
Historically, software that can only be sold in one country has suffered badly in the marketplace against software that can be sold everywhere. I first saw that at GEAC, when they were certified in (if memory serves) Germany and started seeing many more sales in countries we'd never heard of before (;-))
If you have to have software that's designed to meet a required lowness of confidentiality, you'll be the only country writing it. You probably won't trust another tin-pot country's software, and will have to keep doing it all yourself.
Vendors want to sell software that meets the highest standards, so they can sell it into lots of countries, not write individual specials for every tin-pot dictator on the planet.
Image how much fun it will be, trying to write your own routers, your own google, your own facebook, etc, etc. All so you can lower the quality.
They require notice, so the pilot can be informed of any localized special concerns, such as "this is an airport, stay away".
If ip in set(FCC) {
... speed = slow
... permanently overprint "Welcome to your new, non-neutral, net"
}
else {
... for 10 seconds overprint "We're slowing the FCC, you should too"
... speed = fast
}
Actually it doesn't scale: if you have strong enough dependencies, A: B, eventually you'll start getting B: A. If either has a bug, they all have a bug. This is one of the things that MVS programs suffered from, as people kept putting stuff into them, typically until they could send mail (;-))
Some chaps at Bell Labs saw the problem and invented pipes, tools and loose coupling.
... dictates the answer. Reasoning strictly inside the box that creates, if you then try to propose a robot can use it's own judgment for everything but firing a weapon, you'll get criticized for hitting the edge of the box and not allowing it to actually be autonomous.
In fact, the question isn't "how autonomous", it's "autonomous or not".
They're not granted monopolies unless they are telcos owning poles. The non-telephone companies typically bought up the space on hydro poles. Poles are a regulated monopoly, people using them are an unregulated monopoly.
At the technical level, treat it as if it were "bufferboat", make sure your buffers are configured properly, and use an AQM algorithm like fq_codel. Doubly so if you're Level 3 or any other poor ISP connected to the culprits!
See http://gettys.wordpress.com/20...
Clearly the smart move is to leave, and become a service provider. Start a security focused business, start something the NSA themselves will have trouble getting into, and you provide incentive for them to buy their way in when your security focus attracts someone they find interesting
I wasn't asking about legitimate spin-offs, I was wondering how many of them are pure crooks (;-))
When Sun still existed, it wasn't at all unexpected for a couple of people to leave to start their own business, work on something on their own nickel that Sun wasn't going to fund, and see if they'd get bought.
The Sun very-very-multithreaded chips came out of two hardware designers thinking that there was a better way to go fast than "this chip is so hot it glows in the dark". They got lots of parallel threads almost immediately, whereupon Sun bought them! They eventually got faster single-threaded performance too, all out if breaking up the function units very differently.
All large organizations suffer from this phenomenon, whether they're public or private. All large organizations suffer from crooks walking out with thumb-drives, too...
The NSA has its grubby little paws everywhere.
I wonder how many of these companies were started by ex-sysadmins with their pockets full of thumb-drives? Is their security is that bad, there must be a thriving business in recycled secrets (;-))
This because the UK discovered to their discredit that chip and pin could be broken by grad students on a security course. See Chip and Pin is Broken (2010)
Being nice doesn't make you wise. Mr. Stroustrup is certainly intelligent: I've read his apologia*, and have no doubt he was following a good lead, and wasn't planning to fail.
--dave
[* See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... I'm using it in the religious sense]
Anonymous
No one's forcing you to use those features.
Regrettably, you have to navigate around using them: It's like a control panel with the 40% of the buttons you push spattered among the 60% you don't.
Or, more precisely, the statements you know the grammar for are only 40% of what are in in the recognizer. The program that's trying to read your input and sort it into correct and erroneous now has a much greater chance of mistaking an error for a valid statement in the language.
Guess what happens when you say do 10 i=1.5 instead of do 10 i=1,5 in FORTRAN. Syntactically correct, but not what you meant to say!
I've used it off and on since "c with classes", and while it's regularly improved at the detail level, it's still
- non-orthogonal
- complex
- exceedingly subtle in spots.
I think the best characterization is still Ozan's:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance (variously attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others)
Besides being vigilant, you have to "petition the King for Redress of Grievance", well as pressure the commons (legislature) to strengthen the law, lean on the police to enforce the law that already exists, write amicus curia letters to the courts and burn the occasional monopolist at the stake (;-))
In Canada, the local hydro companies are regulated monopolies already, own half the poles on the streets and all the electrical cables on the poles. If they owned the fibre on the poles, we'd be in a distinctly better state, somewhat like parts of the EU.
I think we'll disagree on the sufficiency of crypto, but we definitely agree on the necessity!
Would you say they're ordered? I so I'd want crypto first and laws second, if only because crypto takes less time to write (:-))